Liberal: Rush Should Be Shot For Treason

It’s going to get very very nasty. An “UNcivil war in fact. I already have trouble talking to my friends (and stupid family) who voted for Obama, and if even one of them mentions Rush Limbaugh to me, I may have to strangle them!
After all the ways they all beat President Bush up over the last 8 years, I am sick to death of their hypocrisy!
I am listening to Rush- or shall I say Bawny Fwank- and I am getting ready to scream! Are you kidding me? We have to take it up the…… because Obama is the King? Well Bawny, that’s your call, but I am not that easy!

OK, So am I the only one that views this whole situation with humor. Rush and the White House know exactly what they are doing with this. This is a syllogism that rather than wring our hands over, we should sit back and marvel at the beauty of it. The equation is thus:

Rush Limbaugh wants the President to fail. If the President fails the country fails. Therefore, Rush Limbaugh wants the country to fail.

Then the White House takes it to the next level:

Rush Limbaugh wants the country to fail. Rush Limbaugh represents the Republican Party. Hence, the Republican Party wants the country to fail.

It’s brilliant. And Rush being the great entertainer that he is, he runs with it. Is there a better way to generate publicity than getting into a verbal tussle with the White House? There are radio host that would kill for that type of publicity. But their not Rush. Kind of like why Jay Z never bothered mentioning his haters in his raps. The only one worthy of that honor was Nas and 50 Cent.

I would be concerned if they got into with Savage or Hannity that’s local community theater type stuff. But getting into with Rush? That my friend is Broadway and something that we should enjoy.

As an aside (I’m not going to debate the nuances of Rush’s statement. Because that’s missing the point. That statement is like a title to a movie and what has transpired is the actual film. And its the film that we’ll ultimately judge. )

Clear Channel is certainly loving it. They lost $4 billion in 2008. You don’t think Rush understands that? The only one getting hurt by this is Michael Steele and the GOP in general. But hell, they are clueless anyway.

This is a lot more fun than discussing the banking crisis which no one on earth really understands anyway. The whole thing has run its course and both sides got exactly what they wanted from it.

Congrats for getting the who is playing whom” bit, James Manning. I would only caution you to not underestimate the many in the GOP who do indeed “get it”. Steele and the elected ones may be a little slow. But then, if they can’t maintain a poker face thru it all, they’re useless anyway.

And it’s not all about money and ratings. That’s just a bonus perk.

Personally, I love it when this stuff drops from the mouth of liberals….

@james manning: “I the only one that views this whole situation with humor.”

Yeah, it’s always funny when libs talk about killing conservatives or gleeful at the prospect of their demise (how many examples do we have? Bush, Cheney, Tony Snow, Rush).

Imagine James’ outrage if a Republican suggested killing a lib.

What was really funny about James’ comment was this:

“Rush Limbaugh wants the President to fail. If the President fails the country fails. Therefore, Rush Limbaugh wants the country to fail.”

You have it backwards.

If Obama succeeds we all fail.

Come on, group… I’m hoping this keeps going and we have more liberals wandering around the talking head circuit making statements like this. Couldn’t do the conservative movement any bigger favor. They only drive more of the somewhat curious to have a listen to Rush to find out what all the “ado” is about.

I heard Rush say they think the listenership as almost doubled in the last week… but they don’t have the numbers to substantiate it at this time since it’s not sweeps. Even sans specific numbers, I’d wager a guess that his listening audience has indeed increased.

Rush can handle his own on this media/WH assault. As he says, “I was built for this”.

This game may be over for the WH being as Gibbs, the in-the-dark Press Secy, labeled it “counterproductive” on the same day it was exposed as an orchestrated campaign and WH ploy, and Plouffe had a high profile WaPo op-ed. Doh! They may be starting to see that this stuff is most likely to backfire on their intent.

So this lady wants Limbaugh executed for Treason? I hope that gets replayed over and over to show what evil, malcontents they are. If a conservative had said that about a liberal talk show host, the media would be having a field day.

Was she wearing a red star or swastika???

@Timothy: “I hope that gets replayed over and over to show what evil, malcontents they are. “

You know it won’t be. Yet, you will still see out of context clips of Rush saying he hopes Obama fails over and over and over and apparently well informed libs like James don’t know what Rush meant even though he has said it repeatedly.

The idea of executions for those who disagree with lefties and libs make them all go orgasmic. The left, useful idiots liberals not unlike today’s islamofascists have since the French Revolution nursed a blood lust that has far to many of them drenching their knickers.
Every totalitarian of the twentieth century from Lenin Stalin, Kun, Hitler, Castro, Ho and most recently Chavez have caused to swarms of our lefty and lib elites to instantly and repeatedly reach spontaneous multiple orgasms. The left has long called for the blood of tall hose who had viepoints different from themselves. Stephanie Miller would have been the perfect fit for an administrator, planner and organizer for Stalin’s Gulag Empire.

Again, this is no big deal and anyone on the left that took Rush’s statement serious should be ashamed of themselves. It wasn’t that big of a deal but as political theatrics go, the WH and Rush played it perfect.

I was more than willing to give Michael Steele a chance but apologizing to a talk show host is some punk shit.

@jetmech,

You explained Rush’s statement well but you forget one thing… I don’t give a damn what Rush said. I don’t care how the WH responded. I find it odd that Liberals would get their panties in a knot over it. Who cares? But again, for entertainment purposes… I enjoyed it.

@james manning: So James, you approve of political murder?

From a conservative blogger:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/188279

On the one side, the president of the United States: soft-spoken and conciliatory, never angry, always invoking the recession and its victims. This president invokes the language of “responsibility,” and in his own life seems to epitomize that ideal: He is physically honed and disciplined, his worst vice an occasional cigarette. He is at the same time an apparently devoted husband and father. Unsurprisingly, women voters trust and admire him.

And for the leader of the Republicans? A man who is aggressive and bombastic, cutting and sarcastic, who dismisses the concerned citizens in network news focus groups as “losers.” With his private plane and his cigars, his history of drug dependency and his personal bulk, not to mention his tangled marital history, Rush is a walking stereotype of self-indulgence—exactly the image that Barack Obama most wants to affix to our philosophy and our party. And we’re cooperating! Those images of crowds of CPACers cheering Rush’s every rancorous word—we’ll be seeing them rebroadcast for a long time.

Rush knows what he is doing. The worse conservatives do, the more important Rush becomes as leader of the ardent remnant. The better conservatives succeed, the more we become a broad national governing coalition, the more Rush will be sidelined.

But do the rest of us understand what we are doing to ourselves by accepting this leadership? Rush is to the Republicanism of the 2000s what Jesse Jackson was to the Democratic party in the 1980s. He plays an important role in our coalition, and of course he and his supporters have to be treated with respect. But he cannot be allowed to be the public face of the enterprise—and we have to find ways of assuring the public that he is just one Republican voice among many, and very far from the most important.

Larry, I’ll see your conservative blogger and raise you one:

All these highbrow conservative attacks on Limbaugh keep missing the point.

1) There is a certain sort of genius there that can do 15 hours of talk per week, ad hoc, and hold an audience of 20 million plus for over 20 years. There are about one or two others out of some 300 million who can do it. It may not be the same as digesting Reinhold Niebuhr or rereading the Federalist papers, but it is an uncanny talent and for over twenty years it has energized conservatives and reflected a certain populism that was lacking in its Wall Street/silk-stocking past. One could give Air America 1 trillion dollars in subsidy and it still could not match Limbaugh’s audience.

2) Unlike many of his critics, Limbaugh is consistent, and that’s why he maintains his audience. He is not going to wake up in the morning with vero possumus infatuation. Long before Barack Obama came along, he was warning his listeners about another populist maverick (from the Right) Ross Perot, and why they should not jump ship for him. For millions of conservatives the problem is not Limbaugh’s occasional over-the-top riffs that are part of the talk-show genre, but NY-DC trimmers and triangulators who get caught up in fads and waves of popularity and adjust accordingly — as if they do not have the innate common sense to see that borrowing another trillion and more dollars to cure the problems brought on by borrowing annually a half-trillion dollars is, well, insanity.

3) When commentators bring up Limbaugh’s private life in contrast to Obama’s picture-perfect image, they only emphasize the superficial. I don’t think Limbaugh would sit for 20 years listening to a white-supremacist preacher G-Ding America. I don’t think, like a Moyers, he would care all that much to learn who on his staff is gay. As is not the case with a Bill Maher or Michael Moore, those around Limbaugh like him, because they sense he is, for lack of a better word, a regular guy. That’s why he can go on about his mansion and plane since his audience senses it is more caricature than snootiness. And if you did not actually hear conservative elites tsk-tsking Limbaugh’s weight, marriages, and past addiction, then you would have to invent them doing so. We saw all that with Palin and the demonization of her multiple pregnancies, blue-collar husband, twangy speech, and Idaho B.A. Yet the reason why a Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush was elected twice — and not George Bush primus — was precisely because they could resonate with the middle classes in both a cultural and social sense, an ability that transcends money but has everything to do with attitude. What scares many is not the sometimes slobby but authentic image of a blunt-talking Rush Limbaugh, but the polo-shirted pre-packaged personas of an Obama, John Edwards, or John Kerry.

In recent days, there has been a great fuss over Rush Limbaugh. It’s amazing, the attention he attracts, and the heebie-jeebies he gives people. Some of my friends have blasted him. One was in my office just yesterday, blasting him.

Okay. Rush isn’t for everybody, but who is? There are many other radio hosts on the dial, and you can choose the ones you like — or none at all. I like Rush. I think he’s right about almost everything. And I like his spirit — the sheer joie de vivre he expresses. I wish I had more of that myself.

After November’s election, Colin Powell said that Republicans have to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh. Since when have they ever listened to Rush? For president, the Republicans nominated probably Rush’s least favorite politician (in the GOP, that is). And I’m sure most Rush fans voted for him, because they thought he was a lot better than the alternative, which he was.

Whom did Powell support, by the way? Barack Obama, the Democrat, and the most left-wing president we have ever elected, possibly. I’m not sure that Powell Republicanism is the Republicanism the GOP should want.

And let me say a further word about John McCain — whom I admire, and whom I voted for enthusiastically. He was almost perfect for the GOP moderate types, you would have thought. He was anti-Christian Right. He was Mr. Campaign Finance Reform. He was Mr. Amnesty. He was Mr. Global Warming. He was Mr. Reach Across the Aisle.

Except for being against abortion and for free trade, he was made-to-order.

And if McCain isn’t good enough for the Powell brigades — who ever would be?

As far as I know, Rush Limbaugh isn’t running for anything. And he isn’t trying to be the face of the Republican party. He has a radio talk show. And, taking advantage of free speech in America, he says what he thinks. People are free to agree or disagree. That’s democracy. (Forgive the banality.) If you have a better argument, spell it out. One thing Rush has always been happy to do is engage with ideas.

Are his critics willing to engage with him? Or just sneer and resent?

One other thing Larry.

Not too long ago someone from Huntington Beach was criticizing cut and paste, saying that technique was the “mother’s milk” of blogs like this.

Oh wait…..

That was you.

Pot. Kettle.

Appears that Stephanie Miller hasn’t caught on, even Olbermann got it, perhaps the memo hasn’t reached all of the nutroot’s talking heads as she certainly has not adopted the “Obama tone.”

The following column explains the process and speaks to how Obama has manipulated his way to where he is by his mannerisms, tone, talk and temperment. Nothing really new, still, it is refreshing to see the diagnosis put together as nicely as this author does, just got to read it for your self.

McCain and others have erred by altering their own demeanor simply to play well with Obama. It’s phony and doesn’t work against him.

Well, according to Mr. Siegel, the Rush speech at CPAC has set us all free.

No More of Obama’s Talk, Tone or Temperment
Bill Siegel

The recent Rush Limbaugh speech at the CPAC conference, however, highlighted this issue of tone and temperament. Limbaugh, among many other valuable contributors, finally gave license to many conservatives and others to speak out intensely against Obama and his minions. Covered by national television news outlets, Limbaugh made it safe to angrily confront Obama responsibly and on point, in a visual medium aired to the populace. (He and others have done so on talk radio and the Internet, but those audiences mainly consist of supporters to begin with). And, just as Alinsky’s 5th , 8th, and 13th rules described in Rules for Radicals state respectively: “ridicule is man’s most potent weapon,” “keep the pressure on,” and “pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it,” it is time for much of the abuse that was thrown for years by liberals at Bush to be redirected toward Obama. No longer is temperament or tone required in this “post-Limbaugh” century. To be clear, Limbaugh was extremely well reasoned, responsible, and unruffled in his presentation. It was his intensity that has opened the door for others to explore, expand, and extend.

“…..Obama not only expresses himself well, words are his primary tools and weapons for mass manipulation. After all, there is nothing “executive” in Obama’s history; only a history of selling himself and his rhetoric for votes. Thankfully, Rush Limbaugh has greatly paved the way for such an awakening. NOW IS THE TIME! So much for talk and temperament.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/no-more-of-obamas-talk-tone-or-temperament/2/